1) Is America's youth becoming more open to socialism or at least socialist policies? It looks like it. My question to you capitalists out there is,
how would you respond if a democratically elected socialist representative started implementing socialist policies? Wouldn't that be "fair" in a
republican form of government? We can debate whether or not a republic or a the democratic process is fair to begin with.
So how would you react? Would you grudgingly accept that the times are changing? Would you attempt to have your state secede from the Union? Or would
you launch a guerrilla war against the federal government?

2) I want to note that it is possible to have a libertarian form of socialism as advocated by Noam Chomsky. This is rarely discussed and could be the
answer to many grievances against socialism as being a vehichle for the state to take away your personal liberties.

1) I would react by A) Fighting every policy that the said president made by calling, emailing, writing letters to my congressman and B) electing
somebody else after him that would turn back the policies. If he became a dictator (like so many do in socialist countries) id fight tooth and nail
to get rid of him. If he became a dictator, our country would go against the very reason why this country was formed in the first place. Socialist
views and programs are one thing, but power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutly.

2) Libertarian Socialism...those two words dont even go together. Just because you put two words together doesnt mean they mean close to the same
thing.

Libertarians want free will in making their decisions. Socialists want the government to do it for them.

By wiki's def, "libertarian socialism" would "attempt to achieve this through the decentralization of political and economic power, usually
involving the socialization of most large-scale property and enterprise." That is not libertarianism what so ever. Libertarians dont believe in
"socialization of most large-scale property and enterprise", nor do me like to make compromises. Chomsky is just trying to put two words together
to make it sound better. Libertarian socialism is just socialism, plain and simple. The only thing that the two would have in common is that he
wants smaller government as well...big deal. It still takes away from somebody when they are considered to be "too big", but then you have to have
somebody determine who is too big and not too big.

Why should I pay for things for everyone else except me. And dont say because they pay for you because then why make that trade at all?

Because some people can barely afford a decent standard of living much less a good one. And that's not just the unemployed people living off
benefits. There are 36 million people living under the poverty line for no other reason than that the system is intrinsically unfair and has a social
hierarchy built into it.

A suggestion for the ones that want socialism go live in Cuba or Venezuela or North Korea maybe some "socialist" african country and then try
to get out, ha, ha The grass is not always greener on the other side. People should be thankfull for having the opportunity to live in a democracy,
bit because the vast majority has never been abroad, they are just ignorant and ignorance is bliss

Try living in France or Denmark (the "happiest country on earth". No one here is advocating USSR style socialism. No one is advocating a one party
communist state. No one is advocating authoritarian rule. The president of France is democratically elected. What makes you think socialism is
incompatible to democracy? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

1) I would react by A) Fighting every policy that the said president made by calling, emailing, writing letters to my congressman and B) electing
somebody else after him that would turn back the policies. If he became a dictator (like so many do in socialist countries) id fight tooth and nail to
get rid of him.

What makes you think that a dictatorship would EVER be allowed by ANYONE in America? Even the citizens with a heavy socialist lean would never want
that. A socialist republic is entirely possible. What makes you people think that socialism has anything to do with authoritarian rule? If the
President of France really f*cked up, he would be impeached like in any other republic.

As for libertarian socialism, I don't exactly see what your problem with the concept it. You are worried that the government would still have too
much power? The whole idea of libertarian socialism is industrial democracy and worker empowerment. The workers control industry democratically which
is necessary for the state to function. The state would be responsible for defense while most production and distribution would be entirely controlled
democratically by the workers.

1) I would react by A) Fighting every policy that the said president made by calling, emailing, writing letters to my congressman and B) electing
somebody else after him that would turn back the policies. If he became a dictator (like so many do in socialist countries) id fight tooth and nail to
get rid of him.

What makes you think that a dictatorship would EVER be allowed by ANYONE in America? Even the citizens with a heavy socialist lean would never want
that. A socialist republic is entirely possible. What makes you people think that socialism has anything to do with authoritarian rule? If the
President of France really f*cked up, he would be impeached like in any other republic.

Even the citizens with a heavy socialist lean would never want that? Really? Ask Sean Penn and his likes about how good of a job Chavez and Castro
are doing. What about Bill Maher? I believe that they would like it very much. Maybe just not the "middle" lefties, those who want a public
option and such, but the ones on the far left wouldnt mind it one bit.

Also, what painting is that in your avatar? Ive been meaning to ask you because it looks really familiar.

I actually forgot the name of it. I think it's the colored version of some old wood engraving or something.

While I agree that there are always gonna be Obama fanatics who wouldn't mind him becoming a dictator but there was probably just as many Bush
fanatics who would've wanted the same thing. Authoritarian rule has nothing to do with being left or right.

Can you provide any evidence whatsoever that Bill Maher or Sean Penn would prefer a dictatorship to a republic?

Originally posted by The Transhumanist
I actually forgot the name of it. I think it's the colored version of some old wood engraving or something.

While I agree that there are always gonna be Obama fanatics who wouldn't mind him becoming a dictator but there was probably just as many Bush
fanatics who would've wanted the same thing. Authoritarian rule has nothing to do with being left or right.

Can you provide any evidence whatsoever that Bill Maher or Sean Penn would prefer a dictatorship to a republic?

I gotta look that paintin up, pretty sure ive seen it before and now it will drive me crazy.

I agree with you on that, but I believe that the Federal Government has to much power as it is. Promoting socialism in any fasion will lead to more
fed power, plain and simple. Libertarain socialism could start out with small government, but then you have to have somebody watch out for everybody
who might become "too big". Not to mention, you have to set up a definition of what "too big" is which could evolve into being a monstrocity of
what it had originally planed for it to be. The ole slippery slope if you will.

Well, I cant actually find something where they say "I would like a dictator instead of a republic" but I did hear a clip of Bill Mayer saying it a
couple times on Glenn Beck's show. Ill do some more digging and find it. And the simple fact that Penn does go and see known dictators, Chavez and
Castro, kinda tells me that he likes em a bit and their style. Why else would he go and hang out with them? If he says otherwise I would gladly call
him out for being a lier. Its like Obama and his reverend that he had for 20 years or so. To me, if I go somewhere and see someone spewing hate in a
church, id say the dude was crazy and leave. I sure as hell wouldnt sit there for 20 years if I didnt like what I was hearing...kinda like Penn. I
wouldnt go visit a dictator if I didnt like what the dude was doing.

Nevermind, found a site where it has him saying he likes a dictator-like government

Are you seriously trying to compare your parents to a socialist state? Almost all parents are like that. France is not a dictatorship. Denmark is not
a dictatorship. Canada is not a dictatorship.

As for putting forth minimal effort, an ideal socialist state would be meritocratic, where your income is directly correlative to your output. This
encourages those with ambition to increase the efficiency of their labor.

Libertarain socialism could start out with small government, but then you have to have somebody watch out for everybody who might become "too big".
Not to mention, you have to set up a definition of what "too big" is which could evolve into being a monstrocity of what it had originally planed
for it to be. The ole slippery slope if you will.

You're not really grasping the concept. There wouldn't be one person in charge of determining what is too big. It would be every working citizens
job to do that. Libertarian socialism is all about an alternative to the old paradigms of increasing corporate power versus increasing state power.
That alternative is increasing direct democratic control of the state by individual citizens. That way if something screws up, it's not the
corporations fault, it's not the representatives fault, it's Every One's fault.

It encourages people to think critically and take responsibility for their decisions. Libertarian Socialism is actually the fusion of personal liberty
and equality that socialism and libertarianism individually advocate. It is actually the most free the average person can be in terms of having the
maximum amount of say in any given decision save for Anarchy where there is no state.

Well yes in it's simplest form it doesn't get any clearer than that... Pick any form of Socialism and you find yourself at the mercy of someone else
rules and judgments... someone else sets your course and direction... we're not talking about rewards for achievement we're talking about the simple
choice not to conform

In a free society if you chose not to conform your penalty is you have no money to do much of anything... in Socialism in you choose not to conform
your comply cut off....

No thanks I'll make my own way through life and quite frankly have done pretty well for myself with out compromising my values or requiring anything
from the state,,,

You're not really grasping the concept. There wouldn't be one person in charge of determining what is too big. It would be every working citizens
job to do that. Libertarian socialism is all about an alternative to the old paradigms of increasing corporate power versus increasing state power.
That alternative is increasing direct democratic control of the state by individual citizens. That way if something screws up, it's not the
corporations fault, it's not the representatives fault, it's Every One's fault.

It encourages people to think critically and take responsibility for their decisions. Libertarian Socialism is actually the fusion of personal liberty
and equality that socialism and libertarianism individually advocate. It is actually the most free the average person can be in terms of having the
maximum amount of say in any given decision save for Anarchy where there is no state.

So the average person can be the most free he can be as long as he doesnt sell to good of a product to where the majority like to use it? I dont
understand the need for those limitations. To keep everybody safer? What happened to my ability to take risk as deemed to my want to do so?

I believe in failure being there to teach me a lesson to try and not do the same mistake again. What libertarian socialism is promoting is that Im
not going to fail because I have limits on what Im able to do as determined by the collective...kinda like what we allready have today, minus the
whole giving up property and corporations part, well sorta lol.

I get the concept and it sounds like it would be a great utopian society. It would be great right after we take stuff from people who earned it by
working their whole lives and just gave it to the community to control. But that very first part is what I have a problem with, having to take
control of the major markets in this country for the good of the people, even tho they are privately owned by people who have worked hard to earn them
and keep them. Does that really sound fair? Say you were to go and work your butt of makeing a house, by hand, for you and your family in a
community. Then one day a tornado comes along and rips up every other house in the neighborhood. You take a couple people in to help them, but you
only have so much room. But, eventually, the good of the community comes up in discussion and the next thing you know, you and your family are kicked
out of your own house, that you built, to make room for a couple more people. To me, Id be fighting tooth and nail to keep what is mine and would not
just let it go and I would have that right to do so.

Well yes in it's simplest form it doesn't get any clearer than that... Pick any form of Socialism and you find yourself at the mercy of someone else
rules and judgments... someone else sets your course and direction... we're not talking about rewards for achievement we're talking about the simple
choice not to conform

Wrong. Any form of government will put you at the mercy of someone else rules and judgments. This has nothing to do with Socialism. It is an intrinsic
quality of representative government. Libertarian Socialism on the other hand is the only system that truly lets to decide your own destiny by
directly applying yourself to state policy through the democratic process. Unless you have true anarchy, you are always going to be subject to
someone's rules and judgments, but at least in libertarian socialism those rules and judgments are your own.

Were you actually in the marines or do you just like displaying the logo? If so you supposedly put down your life for the state and submitted yourself
to be a pawn in foreign policy for the representatives to play with. There is no autonomy in the marine corps.

But that very first part is what I have a problem with, having to take control of the major markets in this country for the good of the people, even
tho they are privately owned by people who have worked hard to earn them and keep them. Does that really sound fair? Say you were to go and work your
butt of makeing a house, by hand, for you and your family in a community. Then one day a tornado comes along and rips up every other house in the
neighborhood. You take a couple people in to help them, but you only have so much room. But, eventually, the good of the community comes up in
discussion and the next thing you know, you and your family are kicked out of your own house, that you built, to make room for a couple more people.
To me, Id be fighting tooth and nail to keep what is mine and would not just let it go and I would have that right to do so.

Well the real argument is: is the democratic process fair? The answer is no. Only true anarchy allows people to have autonomy and essentially do
whatever they want, but that would still essentially boil down to mob rule eventually once the majority realized they could push everyone else around.
If we adopted a direct industrial democray however, whatever the majority would decide would be fair to the majority, which is about as fair as you
can hope to get. There is consensus democray, the style that created the Constitution, but we all know what that compromise lead to. (Slavery ring any
bells?) The majority is rarely always right, but they are at the very least fair to the majority.

In terms of people working hard their whole lives, what about migrant farm workers working 15 hour shifts in the fields every day. Do they ever get to
own a single share of the farming company that puts them to work? No, and they would never be able to afford anything besides the bare necessities on
that salary so they wouldn't even have the opportunity to invest. Capitalism is marketed as the most fair system because everyone has equal potential
to become rich. This is simply not true. You have to have poor farm workers in order to subsidize food costs for everyone else and so that someone
else can profit off of your labor. Is that fair? No I don't think so.

Let's say everyone in America gets a free ride to Harvard and graduates with a degree in environmental science. Obviously some people, although
equally qualified and of equal status are going to get the short end of the stick. In Libertarian Socialism, people still have to work the jobs no one
wants to do, but those people are paid the same and in some cases more than an environmental scientist doing exactly what they want to do to make up
for that.

In terms of people working hard their whole lives, what about migrant farm workers working 15 hour shifts in the fields every day. Do they ever get to
own a single share of the farming company that puts them to work? No, and they would never be able to afford anything besides the bare necessities on
that salary so they wouldn't even have the opportunity to invest. Capitalism is marketed as the most fair system because everyone has equal potential
to become rich. This is simply not true. You have to have poor farm workers in order to subsidize food costs for everyone else and so that someone
else can profit off of your labor. Is that fair? No I don't think so.

Let's say everyone in America gets a free ride to Harvard and graduates with a degree in environmental science. Obviously some people, although
equally qualified and of equal status are going to get the short end of the stick. In Libertarian Socialism, people still have to work the jobs no one
wants to do, but those people are paid the same and in some cases more than an environmental scientist doing exactly what they want to do to make up
for that.

While I agree with the first paragraph that you wrote, the second one is where it gets a little hazzey to me. Its true that migrant workers work hard
as hell, probably harder than you or I have ever worked in our lives, unless you have been a mirgrant worker of course lol. But, I assume that you
have not since you are on a computer, talking on a forum over the internet. That would go against the bare essentials thing that you stated. A
question I ask is whether or not do migrant workers have the ability to own a share in the company that they work for? I say yes, if the company is
publicly traded, they have every right to buy a share if they so choose, as do you and I. But if it is a privatly owned company, what right do they
have to buy into the company if they are not asked to?

Your statement that "Capitalism is marketed as the most fair system because everyone has equal potential to become rich. This is simply not true."
is false in my view. It is the most fair system in that everybody does have the potential to become rich if they work hard enough to become rich.
Just because somebody has a hard job doesnt mean that they will become rich, you have to save and make investments and such do so. Its not just
handed out, sacrifices must be made. For a migrant worker, maybe they eat one less meal a week to save a couple bucks to go somewhere else to look
for a better job and so on. This whole country was built on the sacrifice of others, unfortunately some of it was forced, but it was sacrifice non
the less. My ancestors never held slaves and they sacrificed to get where they were and to become "richer" over the years. That meant that maybe
the second generation of my family was able to buy a house of their own instead of renting, then the third was able to start a company and so on.

Yes, you have to have poor farm workers to keep prices low. That goes back to your other thead in which I stated that the min wage law and unions are
what outpriced GM right out of the market. But, the beauty of capitalism is that eventually, if the poor farm worker plays his cards right, he can
move up in the world. At the very least, his children will move up...if he plays his cards right. You are saying that no matter what he does, he
will be taken care of which is not fair.

In Libertarian Socialism, Im wondering who would determine who gets the "short end of the stick" and who would get the other job? The collective
masses would pick every job for every human being? If so, that is highly inefficient and I believe that it will go back to the same old way,
eventually, of its not what you know but who you know. And why should they get paid more than they other guy? Because they are doing a less
desirable job? Wouldnt that make the job more desirable in the end?

I agree! It is also like too many people still think that Republicans still stand for conservatism - they are dead wrong. Republicans stand for
corporatism, fascism and oppression and forced Christian religion.

Unfortunately there's no-one that is standing up against both parties to put America back on its correct path. Freedom for ALL.

Well yes in it's simplest form it doesn't get any clearer than that... Pick any form of Socialism and you find yourself at the mercy of someone else
rules and judgments... someone else sets your course and direction... we're not talking about rewards for achievement we're talking about the simple
choice not to conform

That is totally Bu#! Ireland is a Socialist country and everything you stated is WRONG! First, go back to school to learn what socialism is and then
come back and re-state you comments. Take Ireland for Example - the have voting and more citizens vote on average than in the United States. AND
guess what - your vote counts! Not some outdated college that can change the course of an election by secret ballot! That is Socialism if you ask
me!

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.